CTFR 18/428,069 CTFR 83770 DETAILED ACTION This office action is responsive to the Amendments/Request for reconsideration filed on 04/01/2026 after Non-Final filed 01/02/2026. The application contains claims 1-5, 7-16, 18-20 all examined and rejected. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment It is acknowledged that claims 1, 12 and 20 were amended. Claims 6 and 17 were canceled. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to amendments to claim(s) 1, 12 and 20 have been considered but are not persuasive. Regarding the amendments, reciting, “the UGC includes a factual statement, and wherein the at least one resource includes evidence supporting the factual statement in the UGC”. Applicant argues that Ahmed does not identify any “factual statement” in the user’s content. However, the claims do not require identifying a factual statement, it merely requires that the UGC includes a factual statement. As such, Ahmad describes UGC as, a post, a document, electronic message, other communication or electronic content the user is creating as current workspace (paragraph [0005, 0006, 0029, 0080, 0085]). Ahmad further describes the UGC as user composing power point presentation Ref. 31 of Fig. 3. That includes factual statements, “Dividends are important…For example ABC is an example”. Further under BRI, “resource includes evidence supporting the factual statement in the UGC”, a resource that is found to be related to the topic of the factual statement can be interpreted as evidence supporting the factual statement. As such, Ahmad discloses, recommending resource “abc.com/investor/” over just a general resource related to ABC, because it does have content about AGBC’s dividends, i.e., resource “abc.com/investor/” related/evidence supporting of the factual statement “Dividends are important…For example ABC is an example” and topic ABC and dividends (see para. [0092]). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 7, 8, 12-16, 18, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahmed et al. (US 20130036344 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Ahmed discloses: a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a draft post from a user device, the draft post being in an unpublished state and including a user-generated content (UGC), at least by (paragraph [0005, 0006, 0029, 0080, 0085] describes content currently creating (composing) as current workspace therefore is “draft post being in an unpublished state”, and the workspace is described as “a document, electronic message, other communication or electronic content” therefore includes user-generated content (UGC)) searching a database to identify at least one resource that is relevant to the UGC, at least by (paragraph [0086-0088] which describes a database that is searched to identify hyperlinks that have “topic (keywords) and context matching the user-input topic (highlighted words 35) and computer extracted context terms… (from the user's current focus application/work space 31”) and transforming the draft post to display the UGC and the at least one resource identified in the database, at least by (paragraph [0091] “Upon the user selecting one of the listed hyperlinks 25, recommendation engine 17 automatically populates the link (as hypertext) into the user highlighted words 35 or corresponding location.”) wherein the UGC includes a factual statement, and wherein the at least one resource includes evidence supporting the factual statement in the UGC, at least by (Fig. 3 Reg. 3, describes the UGC as user composing power point presentation. That includes factual statements, “Dividends are important…For example ABC is an example”. Further under BRI, “resource includes evidence supporting the factual statement in the UGC”, a resource that is found to be related to the topic of the factual statement can be interpreted as evidence supporting the factual statement. As such, Ahmad discloses, recommending resource “abc.com/investor/” over just a general resource related to ABC, because it does have content about AGBC’s dividends, i.e., resource “abc.com/investor/” related/evidence supporting of the factual statement “Dividends are important…For example ABC is an example” and topic ABC and dividends (see para. [0092]). As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Ahmed further discloses: further comprising: generating a query for searching the database, wherein the query includes at least one keyword extracted from the UGC, at least by (paragraph [0086] “recommendation engine 17 forms a query of database 19 using the highlighted words 35 as the topic of the search… using the user-input topic (highlighted words 35) and computer extracted context words/terms (from the user's current focus application/work space 31) As per claim 3, claim 1 is incorporated and Ahmed further discloses: further comprising: proposing the at least one resource to the user device as an evidence candidate for supporting the UGC , at least by (paragraph [0088] “the database search results, recommendation engine 17 obtains a set or list of qualified (matching) hyperlinks. Recommendation engine 17 orders the obtained hyperlinks according to respective relevance based on the user's current environment”) and receiving an input from the user device indicating a selection of the at least one resource as evidence supporting the UGC, at least by (paragraph [0091] “Upon the user selecting one of the listed hyperlinks 25”) As per claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Ahmed further discloses: further comprising: detecting a new resource accessed by the user device; and indexing the new resource into the database, wherein the database includes a searchable index of a plurality of resources accessed by the user device, at least by (paragraph [0070-0076] “continuous monitoring and analysis of computer-based activity by the user… context analysis engine 13 makes a record in database 19 for the subject hyperlink”) As per claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and Ahmed further discloses: wherein the at least one resource identified in the database includes a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and wherein transforming the draft post to display the UGC and the at least one resource identified in the database further comprises: inserting the URL of the at least one resource into the draft post with the UGC, at least by (paragraph [0070-0076] “continuous monitoring and analysis of computer-based activity by the user… context analysis engine 13 makes a record in database 19 for the subject hyperlink”… paragraph [0091] “Upon the user selecting one of the listed hyperlinks 25, recommendation engine 17 automatically populates the link (as hypertext) into the user highlighted words 35 or corresponding location.”)) As per claim(s) 6 and 17, canceled. As per claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and Ahmed further discloses: wherein the at least one resource identified in the database includes a web content that was previously accessed by the user device, paragraph [0089] “displayed list is formatted such that the user can further filter or narrow the results on metrics surrounding his prior activities such as Duration (time spent viewing or visiting the hyperlink content), Last visited (date), or Source of the link.”) As per claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and Ahmed further discloses: wherein the at least one resource identified in the database includes a social media post that was previously accessed by the user device, wherein the social media post is associated with a different user, at least by (paragraph [0053] “context analysis engine 13 captures activity content links of a user, where an activity content link comprises a hyperlink associated with an activity of the user. Example activity content links include, but are not limited to, URL history links, links in emails received/browsed by the user, links in IM's (instant messages), links in social network content, links in social bookmarking content, and the like.”) Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 recite equivalent claim limitations as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a system; Claim 20 recite equivalent claim limitations as claim 1 above, except that they set forth the claimed invention as a computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; as such they are rejected for the same reasons as applied hereinabove . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Lord (US 20150016661 A1) As per claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and Yehaskel fails discloses: wherein the at least one resource identified in the database includes an image that was captured by a head-mounted display associated with the user device. But Lord describes the above limitation at least by (paragraph [0032] “members capture audio content and imagery (e.g., one or more still images or video) of the event via their mobile devices (e.g., 104a-d), which may be provided as a smartphone (as illustrated) or other suitably-equipped electronic device such as a mobile phone, tablet or laptop computer, desktop computer, digital voice recorder, digital camera, wearable electronic device (e.g., of the likes that may be worn on, or otherwise mounted to, the user's wrist--such as Samsung's Galaxy Gear, the user's arm--such as Panasonic's HX-A500, the user's head--such as Panasonic's HX-A500, Google's Glass, etc., the user's ear--such as Looxcie's LX2 Wearable Video Cam, etc.), or the like or any combination thereof”) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahmed activity content to include imagery from difference sources including wearable devices as disclosed by Lord to provide content captured from user’s mobile device or other suitably-equipped electronic device such as a mobile phone, tablet or laptop computer, desktop computer, digital voice recorder, digital camera, wearable electronic device ( Lord, para. 0032 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Ahmed in view of Yehaskel (US 20120131112 A1) As per claim 10, claim 1 is incorporated and Ahmed further discloses: further comprising: publishing, on a social networking service , the draft post transformed to display the UGC and the at least one resource, at least by (paragraph [0091] “recommendation engine 17 automatically populates the link (as hypertext) into the user highlighted words 35 or corresponding location.”) But Ahmed fails to specifically describe: publishing, on a social networking service However, Yehaskel describes publishing, on a social networking service at least by (paragraph [0056, 0060] “posting to the TWITTER microblogging website…the user is presented with a proposed TWEET 580 which includes a URL to an item of online content relating to the selected title. If the user is satisfied with the proposed TWEET, the user can elect to post the TWEET”). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the draft post describes as content currently creating (composing) as current workspace described as “a document, electronic message, other communication or electronic content” by Ahmed with a posting a proposed TWEET described by Yehaskel, as electronic message/communication includes a TWEET, and enabling the ability present matching online content… for review and posting to the TWITTER microblogging website, ( Yehaskel, para. 0056 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed in view of Fatourechi et al. (US 20140201180 A1) As per claim 11, claim 1 is incorporated and Yehaskel fails discloses: wherein searching the database to identify the at least one resource that is relevant to the UGC further comprises: determining that the at least one resource that is relevant to the UGC is not found in the database; predicting a correction to the UGC based on an alternative resource identified in the database; and proposing the correction to the UGC. The limitation above proposes correction to the UGC, to improve the relevancy of the keywords in the UGC to a resource stored in the database. Fatourechi provides the above solution at least by (paragraph [0019] which describes suggesting keywords to replace the existing metadata for the content where the metadata includes user defined title and description of a particular content, where the existing metadata fails to provide search results in a search, paragraph [0026] describes identifying relevant sources, and corresponding tags/keywords that is recommended to replace existing tags/keywords (para. 0023)) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ahmed to include keywork recommendations for UGC described by Fatourechi to improve the user’s content searchability and relevancy, “new keywords will be more productive in attracting users to the associated content than keywords generated independently by the content provider ( Fatourechi , para. 0020 ) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thorne et al. (FEVER: a Large-scale Dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification ( NAACL 2018): See Sec. 3, Fig. 2. DeLuca et al. (US 20200099647 A1): Abstract; para. 0035-0038. Manolescu et al. (US 20100042910 A1): Abstract; para. Para. 0018, 0022. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3157. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PT. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Ng can be reached at (571) 270-1698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /DENNIS TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 06/03/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 2 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 3 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 4 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 5 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 6 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 7 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 8 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 9 Art Unit: 2164 Application/Control Number: 18/428,069 Page 10 Art Unit: 2164
Prosecution Insights